"Joachim Peiper’s Atrocities Against Allied ..." Topic

…Troops: When Intimidation Failed.

"The forces of Nazi Germany are infamous for the atrocities they committed. The SS, who played a dual role, both acting as frontline troops and running the death camps which would become such a terrible stain on the history of Europe. The SS and their leader, Heinrich Himmler, were responsible for many atrocities.

Though they committed their greatest atrocities on the Eastern Front, war crimes were also committed against Allied troops in the west. The most infamous of these crimes happened under Joachim Peiper, during the Battle of the Bulge.

Launched in December 1944, the Battle of the Bulge was the last gamble of a German army trying to hold back the Allied advance, and Hitler's final attempt at a Blitzkrieg attack that had once brought him such success. Emerging through the Ardennes, the Germans attacked a weak point in the Allied line, hoping to break through, split the American and British armies, and force those two nations to the negotiating table…"
More here
link

The nazy kids of the 12th SS paid the price also…

Amicalement
Armand

"Peiper was murdered in 1976, and though the perpetrators were never caught, it is assumed that his past had caught up with him."

Well at least it has a happy ending.

I'm vehemently opposed to vigilantism, but I make an exception for this case.

A rather superficial discussion of the subject. Probably the most balanced and well researched account is Jean Paul Pallud's in the After the Battle book The Battle of the Bulge – Then and Now.
As far as intimidation is concerned it was quite the opposite. The US military publicised as much as possible to stiffen the resolve of US soldiers and stem the panic that had set in amongst some US units. The message was clear – no point surrendering to the Germans as they will shoot you anyway.

People get all worked up over some executed soldiers who surrendered or captured partisans but the firebombing of civilians and leveling cities and those same people giggle like maniacs and chant "they got what they deserved!" Sorry, I just despise selective outrage.

Despise away, then.

*EVERYONE* has selective outrage, if we did not, looking back through history, we would ALL be outraged ALL the time.

I don't have the emotional reservoir to do that. And neither does anyone else, so we ALL filter and prioritize and select.

Selective outrage? No. Curious choice of words entourage. This about a man (and organization) who as the article mentioned took delight in burning down villages and killing innocent civilians, not partisan but civilians. I guess from your text it is perfectly acceptable to kill enemy soldiers who have surrendered? As you say it is no big deal. As to the bombing of cities once again we hear the excuse of Nazi appoligists. Change the subject to defect guilt.

Yeah. Read some honest accounts of the fire bombing of Dresden.

Start with David Irvings book. And don't troll me about Mr.Irving. No matter what some miight say about some of his later books, His Dresden book is quite well reguarded as the high point of what is out there about the terror bombing of that city and germany as a whole.

My grandfathers whole surviving family(save one brother, who disappeared on the eastern front) were killed when the city was destroyed.

And the 'moral equivalency' s appear…

Irving, the lifelong Nazi apologist, invented interviews, pulled numbers out of his arse and then used sensationalism, hyperbole, supposition, conspiracy theory and downright lies to create a fairy-tale about Dresden. His objective was to promote the idea that Germany was a victim. The fact that idiots still believe his thoroughly discredited version of events proves that to a certain degree, he succeeded.

"Peiper was murdered in 1976, and though the perpetrators were never caught, it is assumed that his past had caught up with him."
Probably killed while resisting "extraction" to stand trial in Israel.

Thank you jemima Fawr! Always good to hear a debunking of the bull out of David Irving, and to be reminded how so much of his "history" is pulled out of his ass.

I never understood the theory that killing prisoners (or torturing them) is an intimidation factor. One would think this would only add to the opponent's resolve to fight to the end "since they're just going to kill me anyway."

Better to die from a bullet in the head or concussed by artillery than tortured.

Piper was a prick and got everything he deserved. Do wrong, and wrong is what you will get…in his case eventually.

As for Dresden, it was called a total destruction raid for a reason. Germany could have surrendered unconditionally at any time if they chose to. They chose poorly. Note that there was a significant portion of the German high command that thought they should consider surrender in late 1943 and tried to whack "Der Fuhrer" in 44. That the war went on through mid 45 and all the ensuing fire raids is strictly the fault of the Nazi government. Too stupid/proud to know when they are whooped. Always remember, the people of Germany brought Hitler to power. At the time he was appointed Chancellor, the Nazi party was the largest party in the German Parliament. While Hitler may not have been elected, the Parliamentary officials were.

We used the same bombing tactics in Japan. They could surrender unconditionally at any time to avoid the destruction of their country. They were convinced when the A-bomb was used.

Regardless of his affiliation, he was found not guilty by an Allied court. It looks like new recruits got nervous and started shooting, rather than a Deliberate order from the top.

Place Prisoners of war Civilians
Honsfeld 19
Büllingen 59 1
Baugnez 86
Ligneuville 58
Stavelot 8 93
Cheneux 31
La Gleize 45
Stoumont 44 1
Wanne 5
Trois-Ponts 11 10
Lutrebois 1
Petit Thier 1
Total 362 111

362 PoWs and 111 civilians in about 1 dozen events. No recruit could be that "jumpy." That and the close range shot to the back of the head is a dead giveaway. link

@Who Asked This Joker, then why wasn't he convicted and executed? A 94 year old Nazi work camp Guard was just convicted within the last week, there's not shortage of zealous prosecution even to this day. If it is all true, maybe he deserved such a sentence but if accusations are to be accepted as factual, then you have a major inconsistency that must be explained.

then why wasn't he convicted and executed?

No clue. He was a card carrying NAZI and an SS Officer to boot. I guess they couldn't link him to anything.

Peiper was convicted and sentenced to death along with 42 other members of the SS involved in the Malmedy massacre. However, Peiper and the SS prisoners were mistreated (including allegedly torture) by the US Army. The Secretary of the Army created a commission (Simpson Commission) to investigate; and as a result the sentences were reduced to life imprisonment. But the controversy didn't go away and a US Senate subcommittee investigated. Eventually the sentences were commuted to time served. Peiper was in prison for nearly 12 years and was the last Malmedy defendant released.

In addition to war crimes committed in Belgium, Peiper was accused of war crimes committed in Italy, but the courts (Italian and German) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

So, in no case was Peiper found "not guilty" by a court, but guilty of crimes committed in Belgium and not prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed in Italy.

Reference: The report of the US Senate Subcommittee…

PDF link

I'm no idiot.

I'm a history teacher, and I'll have you know that when I went to collage, Mr. Irvings book on Dresden was held to be quite right on the facts of the fire bombing.

But troll away. I guess I'm an easy target. Imean, what do I know.

@John: And what is the current holding of the history education community on the facts of Mr. Irvings book?

As far as the comparison between the firebombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Japan, Japan had a very decentralized industry. Lots of small shops, not many major factories. Means you need to destroy the entire city to take out the "factory," instead of simply destroying a small cluster of buildings in the middle of the city.

Who's trolling? I'm sure you're no idiot, but you appear to have been lectured by a few at college. Who assessed Irving's revisionist dribble to contain 'facts'?

"Mr. Irvings book on Dresden was held to be quite right on the facts of the fire bombing."

'was' being the key word there…

Richard Evans book 'Lying about Hitler' goes some way into debunking Irving's Dresden book, devoting a chapter to it, noting falsifications, inflated casualty rates and reliance on known forged documents.

Even in 1963 when reviewing the draft manuscript, Irving's own publisher noted that the Dresden book falsified historical fact…

Some references related to the Irving libel suit against Lipstadt. Mostly about the holocaust but the trial did touch on Dresden….

link

link

link

Of interest because (1) Irving initiated the case and (2) it ended with a judge pronouncing on Irving's historical methods after two years of evidence being presented in a courtroom.

I'll tell you truthfully, I had no idea who David Irving was so I googled him.

From WIKI
"David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English Holocaust denier and author who has written on the military and political history of World War II"
link

I stopped there.

David Irving's first published popular history, before The Destruction of Dresden was The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17, about one of the early WWII arctic convoys to Archangel that turned into a particular disaster. Irving seems to have a thing for 'destruction'.

link

In PQ-17, Irving blames Winston Churchill for sacrificing British lives and resources to support Stalin against Hitler. Irving seems also to have a thing about Churchill. Irving is not entirely clear in PQ-17 what policy he would have preferred the UK to pursue.

I wondered from the beginning what he was getting at.

Certainly some silly logic going on here.

Wow Queen Catherine that some serious research there. A incident during a battle where prisoners were executed and Germans wearing american uniforms were "operating" behind lines and a Hollywood movie. Great stuff there. David Irving would be proud.
Let's compare that to a government with weasels like Peiper who policy was the extermination of civilian populations. Ya real good against civilians and burning towns.
Also, please remember pepper was resposible for atrocities committed in Russia, Italy and France. Quite a record to be proud of…..

As expected this thread has deteriorated into the usual standard of debate between the morale equivalence crew and those who say they should have been hung drawn and quartered.
Taking the morale equivalence argument first. So they bombed one of our cities and killed a lot of civilians so it is ok to shoot some POW's right? Wrong. This isn't some macabre balance sheet of atrocities. Each incident stands or falls as an atrocity on its own merit. Whether the bombing of Dresden was an atrocity or not is irrelevant to the Malmedy massacre. If it is wrong it is wrong whatever else the other side did to you.
Then there are those who are normally opposed to vigilantism, but are prepared to make an exception in this case. Peiper was nasty Nazi after all and he deserved what he got right?! Wrong. If you want to be one of the good guys you have to hold yourself to a higher standard than the bad guys. That means that nasty bad guys get the protection of the law too. It also means sometimes they go free because the necessary standards of proof are not met. Further guys like David Irving are free to peddle their nonsense as they have the same right of free speech as everyone else. That doesn't mean their views should go unchallenged, refuted or debunked.
If you are interested in separating fact from fiction the After the Battle book I mentioned earlier in the thread is a good one stop reference. Peter Elstob's book Hitler's Last Offensive covers the post war US military investigation and trial of Peiper's battle group quite well.

Sorry if I helped derail.

I just pointed out that when I was in collage, Mr. Irvings book was considered a fair and relyable account of the firebombing.

Yet again: to every complicated question there is a very simple answer and it is usually wrong. Sorting out the truly white and black hats from all the grey hats is very complicated. People usually give up and take refuge in wishful, compulsive groupthink – something like painting the Mona Lisa with an industrial spray gun, which is sadly what I suspect also happened to Mr Irving.

People also have a bad habit of believing their own propaganda as true history. Very unwise.

Has anyone recently read Martin Middlebrook's "First Day on the Somme" regarding the "complicated" relationship between Tommies on the front line and captured Germans?

B

Do you want a straw hat for your straw man, Queenie?

Jemima – Do you want everyone to think you are stupid and or congenitally obtuse? Queen's point is quite valid. Orwell wrote a perceptive essay on the thought habits of people like you. Time to grow up.

Ooo, calling me stupid and telling me to grow up. How intelligent and adult of you, Begemot.

Queenie is attempting to draw moral equivalency and set up strawman arguments. "Allied soldiers committed atrocities. Therefore, the Allies were just as bad."

I'd like Queenie to point out examples of MASS executions of PoWs by Western Allied troops. Executions that were ordered by senior officers or under the supervision of officers. Executions that were carried out away from and some time after the heat of battle. Executions that were carried out as a matter of national policy.

Examples of the above from the Axis side are ten-a-penny. I can't think of a single example from the Western Allies. Perhaps you are too stupid, obtuse or childish to understand the point. Please enlighten me with your adult intelligence.

Another wonderful insight from old Queenie. Wow, everyone does it. Brilliant! Almost as good as giving a Hollywood movie as a historical example.

Ok here is a example for you. Your hero peiper was BFF with Himmler. What is the old saying about you can tell a person's character from their friends? He was a devoted nazi who committed atrocities on three fronts and never felt remorseful. He was placed on trial, found guilty. But when it was found that his rights has been violated he was released. One side upheld rights and laws the other murdered civilians and laughter about it.

Personally I felt jemima has spoken well and intelligently on this topic. And I for one would chip in for that hat for your straw dummy! Thank you!

Oh and while you might think that referencing Orwell makes you seem academic, it simply makes you look like a bit of a . Sorry if that comes as a shock. Try referencing some military history instead.

For those who have said this was a isolated incident please review the list "who asked this joker" provided. That is quite a list of both soldiers and civilians. Please add to it the wereth massacre of African American soldiers tourtured and murdered. All by the happy hero's of the Pieper and 1st SS bully boys. So many unarmed civilians and soldiers to murder so little time. Nice group of people your defending…..

What's all this about selective outrage? I'm utterly outraged about absolutely everything all the time. As for stamping on Schnauser puppies…everybody need a hobby.

It's kittens for me…

So here are 10 facts about the Prussian SS officer in question. link It expands tremendously on the list provided in all fronts and concentration camps he served or visited.

Not exactly a boy scout or Emily Post.

Thank you joker for the links! Again i have learned a somefacts i did not know . The more I learn about him the more I cannot understand why so many look up to this individual as a heroic warrior.

BTW enjoyed your version of Featherstone horse and musket rules. A nice pleasant game. Thank you!

Thing about kittens is…easy to catch, but tricky to skin and challenging to cook..and once you've cooked it you wonder why you bothered. They're not a patch on Labrador pups.

True, but they're very more-ish and there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I see this is going well.

:)